The World and Everything in It: January 23, 2023
On the Legal Docket, attorney-client privilege and what’s protected communication; on the Moneybeat, the debate over the debt ceiling; and on the History Book, a notable speech on the devastating effects of abortion. Plus: the Monday morning news.
MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!
Today on the Legal Docket: The Supreme Court considers the attorney-client privilege—what’s protected communication and what is not.
NICK EICHER, HOST: Also today the Monday Moneybeat. The U.S. government has maxed out the taxpayer credit card. Economist David Bahnsen will talk about the debt-ceiling debate.
Plus, the WORLD History Book. Today, a notable speech on the devastating effects of abortion.
REICHARD: It’s Monday, January 23rd. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.
EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!
REICHARD: Up next, the news with Kent Covington.
KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Reaction to more classified docs found at Biden’s home » Some Democrats are criticizing President Biden after the FBI found even more classified documents at his house in Delaware.
Senator Joe Manchin said he’d like to hear Biden take full responsibility.
MANCHIN: He sure didn’t intend for it to fall into the wrong hands and use it against our country. I know he didn’t intend that to happen. Could it have happened? I don’t know. And yeah, you just might as well say, listen, it’s irresponsible.
“Irresponsible” was how Biden described former President Trump’s possession of classified documents.
Still, many Democrats have come to Biden’s defense. Senator Chris Coons said the difference, in his view, is that Biden has cooperated fully.
COONS: The Department of Justice was invited to come to his home and to search any nook and cranny, top to bottom, to find anything they possibly could.
Republican leaders accuse the Justice Department of treating the Trump and Biden cases differently.
Border numbers » The border crisis continues to grow. Authorities over the weekend reported more than a quarter of a million migrant encounters at the southern border in December alone.
National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd:
JUDD: December, in any typical year, is our lowest month. January is our second-lowest month. We just recorded the highest month ever in the history of the Border Patrol last December when it should have been our lowest month.
That number does not include people who evaded border agents, meaning that the actual number of people crossing the border is significantly higher.
Of those detained last month, 17 people were on the terrorist watch list. Judd said in any typical year that number is usually less than six—for the entire year.
CA shooting aftermath » The driver of a white van tied to a mass shooting in the Los Angeles area is reportedly dead.
The LA Times reported last night that the driver fatally shot himself as police closed in.
Families are mourning the deaths of ten people in the Los Angeles area today, after a gunman opened fire at a Lunar New Year festival. Ten others were wounded.
Robert Luna, Los Angeles County Sheriff...
LUNA: We don't know if this is specifically a hate crime defined by law, but who walks into a dance hall and guns down 20 people? The description we have now is of a male Asian. Does that matter? I don't know. I can tell you that everything's on the table. Our detectives are looking at every possibility with our partners.
10 more people were wounded in the shooting at a dance hall in Monterey Park.
Authorities say they are also investigating what could be a similar incident that took place only 20 to 30 minutes later when a man with a gun entered another dance hall in the nearby city of Alhambra.
LUNA: We are working diligently with the Alhambra Police Department. We believe that there is an incident that may be related. We're not quite there yet, but it's it's definitely on our radar screen where a male Asian suspect walked into a dance hall, and he walked in there with a firearm and some individuals wrestled the firearm away from him. And that individual took off.
On Sunday, police surrounded a van believed to be involved in the shooting and found the driver dead inside.
Ukraine tanks » Germany’s foreign minister says her government “would not stand in the way” if Poland chooses to send German-made tanks to Ukraine.
Up till now, Berlin has signaled that it won’t send its Leopard 2 tanks—or allow other countries to send them until Washington hands over some of its own M-1 Abrams tanks.
Still no indication that Germany plans to send tanks directly without Washington leading the way.
House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul:
McCAUL: If we announce we were gonna send Abrams tanks—just one—that would unleash, that would give Germany the—what I hear is that Germany is waiting for us to take the lead. Then they would put the Leopard tanks in.
The White House has been hesitant to do that. The Pentagon has cited high maintenance costs.
Violent protest in ATL over killing of activist » AUDIO: [Protesters chanting]
In downtown Atlanta the weekend, masked protesters threw rocks and firecrackers at the building that houses the Atlanta Police Foundation.
AUDIO: [Protesters throwing rocks]
The crowd gathered to decry the death of a 26-year-old activist who allegedly shot a state trooper earlier in the week. That incident happened as police were clearing protesters from a planned law enforcement training center. Police said they returned fire and killed the protester who shot and wounded the trooper.
Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens.
DICKENS: The city of Atlanta and the Atlanta Police Department will not tolerate this. And we continue to protect the right to peacefully protest. We will not tolerate violence or property destruction.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation says that the killing of the protester was justified. The incident was not recorded on body cameras.
Debt ceiling » On Capitol Hill, lawmakers continue to debate overspending in Washington and whether to raise the debt limit.
Democrats says the GOP is threatening the full faith and credit of the United States. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine:
KAINE: This is about whether the US pays her credit card or not. And I don’t think anyone should flirt with not paying US’ credit card.
Republican House Majority Leader Steve Scalise says those credit cards are maxed out.
SCALISE: That’s basically how you hit the debt ceiling. It’s the ability to print more money and that expires when you hit the debt ceiling. And so the only way to address it is to control spending or else eliminate the debt ceiling, or a combination of the two.
Many Republicans are pressing for that combination of the two.
President Biden has promised to meet with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to discuss the debt limit, but says he will not make concessions on spending.
Box office: Avatar 2 crosses $2 billion » At the weekend box office, Avatar: The Way of Water just joined an elite club.
TRAILER: Dad, I know you think I’m crazy, but I feel her. So what does her heartbeat sound like? Mighty.
The Avatar sequel finished in the top spot over the weekend with another $20 million domestically. But globally, it just crossed the $2 billion mark, becoming only the sixth movie ever to do so.
The animated feature Puss In Boots: The Last Wish finished second with another $12 million.
I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead on the Legal Docket: what’s covered by attorney-client privilege.
Plus, the Monday Moneybeat.
This is The World and Everything in It.
MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday morning, January 23rd and you’re listening to The World and Everything in It from WORLD Radio. So glad you’re here! Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.
NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket.
News last week that disrupting oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court does not pay. Last fall, three women interrupted an argument in a tax dispute and used the moment as an occasion to protest the Dobbs decision:
Lawyer:…there is no independent violation every time an account is not reported. According to…
Heckler: (inaudible words) Women of America vote!
Lawyer: …according to the government, petitioner violated the act 272 times for unintentionally…
Got to admire how the lawyer does so well to block out the distraction and just continues on with the task at hand.
Well, last week, a federal judge in Washington DC sentenced each of the three hecklers to one year’s probation and banned them from entering the grounds of the Supreme Court during that time.
REICHARD: Okay, so those women were caught and punished, but not so the person who leaked the draft Dobbs decision back in May.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court announced it cannot identify the culprit after an 8-month investigation of what it calls “one of the worst breaches of trust” in court history.
I’ll quote a bit from the unsigned statement that prefaced the report. Here it is: “After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal’s team determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the 82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion.” And then this bit: “...the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.” That’s a legal standard that means “more likely than not” to have happened.
One glaring piece of information I didn’t see in the initial report was whether investigators interviewed the justices. U.S. Court Marshal Gail Curley who led the investigation must have gotten pushback on that, because on Friday she issued another statement. She said she did speak several times with each Justice, but thought it unnecessary to have them sign sworn affidavits.
EICHER: ….although, and this is right, Mary, isn’t it? … everyone else did sign affidavits to affirm they hadn’t disclosed the draft opinion to spouses or partners. And then those who did—and there were people who did—they signed annotated affidavits admitting that they did. That’s correct.
And, the report goes on, investigators looked at connections between employees and reporters, especially connections with Politico, the outlet that published the draft opinion. Nothing turned up, according to the report.
Mary, your thoughts?
REICHARD: Frankly, this is unprecedented. And the idea that this may end right here, with no accountability for anyone is shocking to me. The chief justice is very much concerned with the credibility of the court, and this strikes at the heart of credibility of the institution.
Now, the only positive in all this, it seems to me, is the court is finally aware it has big problems with its security. Printers that don’t track who’s making copies? People working from home without security measures? Hard copies of documents possibly left lying around?
Further quoting here: “gaps in the Court’s security policies created an environment where it was too easy to remove sensitive information from the building and the Court’s IT networks.” Too bad we had to find this out the hard way.
My two cents? Professional investigators should have been brought in immediately. The Marshal’s team just doesn’t have much experience in that field.
And I’m glad the House says it’ll investigate. That gives investigators there subpoena power and the ability to grant immunity to individuals so they will talk.
I just don’t buy the idea that “well, we did our best, we’re done here” is how this ought to end. At this moment, it seems highly likely that a deceitful person is working at high levels in the law. And, here’s another aspect of the unfairness of this. Someone or some small number of people did it either by malice or carelessness, and everyone else didn’t. But everybody’s a suspect. That’s devastating to the integrity of our institutions.
Now hear me: I believe in our system. It’s the best system in the world. Law is a noble profession, and Christians who are called to it should answer the call.
So, I just pray that we haven’t heard the end of this.
EICHER: Well said. Well, let’s trust that the truth will come out.
Oral argument today, In Re Grand Jury.
It asks this question: What is the scope of the attorney-client privilege?
For example, a client who discloses to his attorney information about a past crime he committed—ironic—that that person is protected by the attorney-client privilege. It keeps communications confidential when a client seeks legal advice from an attorney.
REICHARD: In this case, a law firm specializing in tax law received a subpoena from a grand jury to hand over documents on one of its clients. The law firm complied and turned over thousands of pages, but withheld certain other documents, citing attorney-client privilege.
But what if communication between a client and attorney includes both legal and non-legal advice? What test should be used?
Listen to lawyer for the government, Assistant to the Solicitor General Masa Hansford:
HANSFORD: The public has a right to every man's evidence. The attorney-client privilege creates an important but limited exception to that rule for communications seeking legal advice. But, outside the context of legal advice, the every man's evidence rule governs. Employees send emails with trial data showing that a drug caused a serious side effect during trial or evidence that a new design for a car will sharply increase the rate of failure for the car's brakes. Sensitive business conversations with engineers and technical advisors and sales staff have to happen, and when they do, they can be critical evidence in subsequent court proceedings. All agree that such information is not and should not be privileged.
But, she continued, where a client combines a business communication with a request for legal advice, then courts need a test to see if the communication is more the kind that is seeking legal advice, or more the kind that doesn’t need protection of the privilege.
That test is called the primary-purpose test. That is, you ask if legal advice was the “primary purpose” of the client.
Lawyer for the law firm Daniel Levin argued that test is an invitation to chaos:
LEVIN: That test is a mistake because it requires the kind of disentangling and ranking that is so hard to do. You have to reverse the Ninth Circuit because the Ninth Circuit said you need a single primary purpose. And inherent in the word "primary" is the ordinary meaning of "primary" is first. That means something has to be first, something has to be second, something has to be third. The idea that we're going to start slicing and dicing and say, well, investigations, yeah, those are -- those are generally privileged, maybe tax stuff not so, that is a recipe for confusion. It's too hard to separate.
Levin for the law firm argues the better test is the “significant purpose” test. You ask, “was this advice the client’s bona fide purpose?”
Chief Justice John Roberts tried to work out what that means in real life:
ROBERTS: How would you handle a case where an accountant sits down and goes through it, it's a very complicated form, and the accountant says, I want to have a lawyer look at this, and they bring in Lawyer X, and Lawyer X says, you know, I am the world's expert in this area, I've been doing this for 40 years; in my view, this is all very good, except these three items, you know, they're kind of iffy, and I think you should probably not make -- make those; everything else is good, here you go, sends a bill for $200,000. (Laughter.) And -- and, in that case, is that accessible because it's looking at the actual numbers and participating in the preparation of the form? Is the entire thing privileged, or can the prosecutors get that communication?
LEVIN: Oh, I think that's privileged, Your Honor.
Justice Elena Kagan wasn’t buying Levin’s overall argument.
KAGAN: I mean, we've had the attorney-client privilege for a long time, and until 2014, nobody ever suggested that the test that you're proposing is the right one. Everybody instead used the primary purpose test. So this is a big ask, and it's an ask that's not particularly consistent with the underlying nature of what the attorney-client privilege is supposed to be protecting.
The law likes predictability and ease of use. It doesn’t want to shield communications from disclosure that aren’t really privileged.
And then there’s math.
Listen to this exchange between Justice Neil Gorsuch and Hansford for the government who seeks disclosure of documents the law firm claims is privileged.
GORSUCH: Tell me what I'm missing here, all right? I thought you were going to argue for a primary purpose test because that's what the briefs said. Instead, now I hear a significant purpose, 60/40 might do, the 40 percent could be good enough. So can we all agree its significant purpose?
HANSFORD: No, Justice Gorsuch. I do think the area of disagreement in the terminology may be fairly narrow, and …
GORSUCH: What is the disagreement? I mean, if 60/40 is good enough for the government, that would seem to be not a primary because everyone agrees 40 is not primary, but it's significant -- I'll be honest, I'm struggling this morning. 60/40 you say is good enough. That's primary. Forty percent's prime -- that's not primary, counsel, legal, but it's significant.
HANSFORD: So, Justice Gorsuch, perhaps my mistake was attaching percentages to this. In place of that, I would --
GORSUCH: Well, that's not your mistake. That's what -- we did that to you. (Laughter.)
HANSFORD: I -- I was trying to make the point that what judges -- that judges don't do math.
That was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson affirming that judges don’t do math.
Oh, I do appreciate that!
I think the government has the upper hand here—and simple math—I think the government will end up winning.
And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!
MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: it’s the Monday Moneybeat.
NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s time to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen.
He’s head of the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group and he’s here now.
David, good morning!
DAVID BAHNSEN, GUEST: Well, good morning, Nick, good to be with you.
EICHER: Well, last week, we maxed out the national credit card, David, we hit the debt ceiling. And now for the next weeks and maybe months, I guess, we'll have negotiations in Congress around increasing the debt ceiling. Otherwise, as we hear, we won't have the ability to pay on spending commitments we've already made. So let me just ask at the outset, because this is the question that people have, what is—to begin with—the simplest way to speak in a meaningful way about what's at stake here in this debt ceiling question?
BAHNSEN: In terms of what's at stake in the immediate debate and discussion and controversy of the debt ceiling, what's at stake is entirely political, and short-term media sensitive. Fundamentally, there is no possibility of defaulting on the U.S. debt. And by default I mean what the word default means, which is a missed interest or principal payment. Without issuing any new debt, the government has ample ample many, many, many times over cash flows to service its debt. So do you get to a point where they have to be more creative in how they raise some funds to make other payments? Sure. And do you get to a point where certain payments might have to be prioritized in a way and even some payments potentially missed? Yes. And I think all of it's inexcusable. There's no reason to let that happen. I believe we should have a national drag down fight over what kind of money we want to spend. But once we decide we're going to spend the money to then subsequently—for political performance—decide not to approve the funding necessary to pay for the spending you already approved I think is unhelpful. But as far as what's at stake, I think it's mostly, instead of six days of the media bugging us, it could end up being six weeks or a few months. But about seven times this has happened in the last 12 years, and nothing came of it at all. The last time it was a more noteworthy event was the summer of 2011. And that ended up resulting in a sequester, which brought deficits down a lot. That's not going to happen this time. The Republicans do not have the majority in the House necessary to get much out of this. So it's really just going to spin wheels for a little while.
EICHER: Do you think in this debate that there could be a positive outcome? I mean, I think a lot of people were expecting a negative outcome. But if it went well, how would it go well?
BAHNSEN: I don't think that's very possible. It would require an act of true generosity from the Biden administration because they hold all the cards. There's no reason for them to give in. They have the media on their side, national sentiment on their side, and the rule of law on their side. These expenditures have already been approved and budgeted. And so to now not raise the debt limit as a result of just a few, not very many, a few people saying don't raise the debt limit, it would really be incredibly odd, politically, for the White House to do that. So I don't think you're going to get great spending cuts imminently. And I don't think this is the right process to go about getting it. But if you mean what could positive come out of it? I suppose more attention on the fact that our country has fiscally lost its mind. That can be helpful. But I actually think it could also go the other way, that people associate the cause of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget with acts of political lunacy and extremism. I'd rather the cause of a balanced budget be made the right way procedurally, ethically, legally, ideologically.
EICHER: How high do you think the debt ceiling can go? We’re going to have a debate over whether we have a $30 trillion debt ceiling or a $35 trillion debt ceiling. Why not have a $50 trillion debt ceiling? Or why don't you just say, it doesn't matter. Spend all you want, we're not even going to have a debt ceiling. Because the debt ceiling doesn't seem to be all that meaningful. We go through this dance every so often, and finally, there’s an incremental increase in the debt ceiling, followed by more indebtedness, followed by another incremental increase in the debt ceiling.
Why have a debt ceiling at all?
BAHNSEN: You shouldn't have a debt ceiling. I completely believe that. You should have a balanced budget amendment. Legally force the Congress to not commit to spending money that they don't have. So then who cares what the debt ceiling is, if you're not going to spend more than you have. Congress has the right to make laws. They don't have the right to make laws, they have the obligation to make laws. That's their duty. So the debt ceiling is a completely procedural inconvenience. It is unnecessary. You could have no debt ceiling and spend significantly less money. Well, how do you do that? By budgeting less money, by committing to spend less money, or constitutionally require the White House—and particularly in this case—those who make laws in our country, the House and the Senate, to spend less than they bring in. And then give the president wartime powers to suspend certain things. You can work around the things that have come up for national emergencies. But my point is, the debt ceiling isn't the way to do that. It never has been. It would be like saying that the way in which we're gonna get our fiscal house in order in a family is by changing which credit card we use or the credit card that has a different limit. Why not actually just get a budget and stick to it, right? I mean, so to me, we're just trying to find procedural things that always in forever can be and will be worked around.
EICHER: I guess what is at the core of my question—why have a debt ceiling?—is at what point is the reckoning point?
BAHNSEN: Well, how is anyone supposed to know? What we know is that people thought the reckoning point was $30 trillion ago. When we were getting close to $1 trillion in national debt, when Reagan was president, people said we're on the verge of fiscal collapse, and it would ruin the country. And obviously, that was wrong. And now we've raised it at 30 times that. So I brought this up many times. I do want to make the point. One of the most important variables to how much debt we can take on is how much growth we can generate. A family with $500,000 of income can handle $100,000 of debt more than a family with $60,000 of income can handle $10,000 of debt. So the amount of debt divided by income and divided by GDP, which would be equivalent to a family's balance sheet or net worth household wealth, the more growth you get, the more debt is tolerable. But regardless, I would just favor reducing the debt and I would favor reducing the debt not because there's some point that I know or you know or another economist knows as to when we hit the reckoning, because all that does is lead to Chicken Little false prophecy. What I would like is for us to focus on economic growth and reducing the size of government. That is the issue here. It's not a fiscal thing. It's that we want a larger private sector relative to the overall economy because then you get a better allocation of capital. You are resourcing things more productively, generates more growth, more innovation, more opportunity, and you unleash the human spirits more. So that's why this has got to become philosophical. It's got to become theological, rooted in creational truths, trying to mathematically pinpoint the number which the government can't spend any more money is not going to work because I'm telling you that we are wrong about how creative they can kick the can down the road. They can do more than we think they can do to continue extending excessive indebtedness. So we have to root our argument in creational truths, and in my mind the most important one is that every dollar the government spends is a dollar that comes out of the private sector. And the private sector is where better unleashing of the human spirit happens.
EICHER: All right, good place to end it.
I expect we will return to listener questions next week. If you have something you want to ask, please get in touch at email@example.com.
Email the question and I’ll summarize or, better, record yourself. You can make use of the voice memo app on your smart phone and email the file to me at the same address: firstname.lastname@example.org.
David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. His personal website is Bahnsen.com.
David, thank you and we’ll talk again next week.
BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.
NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, January 23rd. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.
MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. The 2023 March for Life was just a couple of days ago. U.S. Representative Chris Smith from New Jersey attended the very first march in 1974. He met his wife at the following march. He is the former Executive Director of the New Jersey Right to Life Committee and has been the chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus for nearly 40 years. Smith has spoken at March for Life many times over the decades—on Friday he ended this year’s speech this way:
SMITH: Regrettably, the pro abortion culture of denial—a modern day Flat Earth Society—continues to deny, devalue and disrespect unborn baby girls and boys. And they trivialize the harm that is suffered by women. The United States and the world must recognize the breathtaking miracle of the newly created life of an unborn child and that women deserve better than abortion.
EICHER: Smith has been one of the driving forces behind the legislative movement to eliminate taxpayer funding of abortion. In 2011 he introduced the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”—proposing to permanently restrict federal funding of abortion as laid out in the Hyde Amendment. The bill passed the House three times before, and is about to be introduced again in the 118th Congress.
REICHARD: Today, in place of our usual style of the History Book, we’ll hear a notable speech given just days before the 2011 March for Life. Representative Chris Smith took to the House floor to speak in defense of the pro-life movement, the March for Life, and declared abortion a human-rights tragedy. We’ve edited his comments to fit the available time:
CHRIS SMITH: Mr. Speaker...earlier today an abortionist in Philadelphia, Dr. Kermit Gosnell was arrested and charged in the death of a mother and seven babies who were born alive but then killed…
According to the CBS TV affiliate in Philadelphia, the district attorney said that in one year alone, Dr. Gosnell made approximately $1.8 million performing abortions. The abortion industry, Mr. Speaker, is a multi-billion dollar business…
The ugly truth is that abortionists often get filthy rich—not by healing or nurturing or curing—but by dismembering and…by starving the child in the womb with lethal agents like RU486 or by other means of chemical poisoning.
The ugly truth is that women are victimized by abortion, wounded and hurt physically, psychologically and emotionally. Women deserve better than abortion. The only thing the multibillion dollar abortion industry has produced in America—and worldwide—is victims. Wounded women and over 52 million dead babies in the United States alone since 1973. More than six times the entire population of my home state of New Jersey. The multibillion dollar abortion industry systematically dehumanizes the weakest and most vulnerable among us with catchy slogans, slick advertising, clever marketing, and very aggressive lobbying...particularly here.
They have made the unacceptable to be prejudiced and bigoted against a child in the womb acceptable to some. This acceptable bigotry has been promoted for decades despite breathtaking advances in fetal medicine, including microsurgery, underscoring the fact that an unborn child is a patient in need of care—diagnosis and care—just like anyone else…and despite the amazing window to the womb, ultrasound imaging.
In 1976, Dr. Willard Cates and David Grimes—then with the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta—presented a paper to a Planned Parenthood meeting entitled and I quote this directly: "Abortion as a treatment for unintended pregnancy: the number two sexually transmitted disease." These two abortion doctors reduced the child in the womb to a disease, to a parasite, to something that had to be vanquished. As far as I know, no one at Planned Parenthood objected to this dehumanizing language and obvious bigotry towards children.
Mr. Speaker, the evidence of significant harm to women who abort increases each and every year. Abortion hurts women's health and puts future children subsequent born to the women who aborted at significant risk. At least 102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression and elevated suicide risk in women who abort…
In 2006, a comprehensive New Zealand study found that almost 80% of the 15 to 18 year olds who had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression as compared to 31% of their peers. The study also found that 27% of the 21 to 25 year olds who had abortions had suicidal idealizations compared to 8% of those who did not have an abortion.
Abortion isn't safe for subsequent children born to women who have had an abortion. And this fact is so under-appreciated in the United States and really around the world. At least 113 studies show a significant association between abortion and subsequent premature births. One study by researcher Shan Zhou showed a 36% increase risk for preterm birth after one abortion and a staggering 93% increase risk after two. Same goes for low birth weight, similar percentages. So what does this mean for the children? Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after congenital anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk from suffering chronic lung disease, sensory deficits, cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments and behavior problems. Low birth weight is similarly associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity…
I hope Americans are listening. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle who take the other side of this issue will begin listening. There needs to be a reevaluation. America needs to take a second look—a long and sustained look—at the surface appeal arguments of the abortion rights side. Abortion is violence against children…
One thing about this prolife movement: It loves them both. It says to both the mother and to the baby, we want to put arms around you. We want to help. We want to be of assistance. And to any post abortive woman: we're all about trying to help and to assist and provide some kind of pathway to reconciliation…
I would hope my friends on the other side of the aisle would take a second long look at the carnage...the unbelievable pain and agony and suffering that abortion has visited upon women. It is not pro-women, abortion exploits women. And it's certainly not pro-child either…
And I do hope that we will move this human rights issue forward.
NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: more reflections on the March for Life this past weekend.
Plus, how environmental protests at a coal mine in Germany are gaining international attention.
That and more tomorrow.
I’m Nick Eicher.
MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.
The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.
WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.
The Bible says: When the famine had spread over [Egypt], Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold grain to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe throughout Egypt. And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph. (Genesis 41:56-57 ESV)
Go now in grace and peace.
WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.